DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0001], is missing the US Patent number of the parent case. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings have been reviewed and are accepted as being in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for communicating, means for processing, in claims 16-22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 12,366,988.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-22 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of the cited 1-20 of US 12,366,988 for associating metadata tags or values. The claim merely omits certain bolded limitations as shown in comparison table below, and replace them with:
Claim 9 (instant application)
Claim 1 (US 12,366,988)
9. An apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; at least one programmable circuit; and machine-readable instructions configurable to cause one or more of the at least one programmable circuit to:
identify a first time value based on metadata associated with a data object;
identify a second time value based on the metadata associated with the data object, the second time value different from the first time value, at least one of the first time value or the second time value based on a user input;
perform a first lifecycle management operation on the data object at a first point in time, the first lifecycle management operation including archiving the data object, the first point in time determined based on the first time value;
and perform a second lifecycle management operation on the data object at a second point in time, the second point in time different from the first point in time, the second lifecycle management operation including discarding the data object from memory, the second point in time based on the second time value.
10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to modify at least one of the first time value or the second time value based on a change to at least one of the data object or the metadata associated with the data object.
1. An apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and one or more processor circuits to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to:
using a metadata tag associated with a data object,
retrieve a first time value associated with a first operation and a second time value associated with a second operation, the first operation and the second operation to be performed using the data object;
perform the first operation based on the first time value, the first time value indicative of a first duration of time upon which performance of the first operation depends;
and perform the second operation based on the second time value, the second time value indicative of a second duration of time upon which performance of the second operation depends.
2. The apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the metadata tag is a first metadata tag, the data object is a first data object, and at least one of the one or more processor circuits is to retrieve, using a second metadata tag associated with a second data object, a third time value associated with a third duration of time until performance of a third operation.
Table 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data processing at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as claimed in the instance application by substituting a first time value a first point in time with a first lifecycle management and a first point in time since an omission and addition of a cited limitation would have not changed the process according to which the method and system as claimed.
Therefore, the use of having first time value or a first point in time would be an obvious variation in the art for the purpose of achieving the same end results having the different first, second, time values associated with the data object and the performing of lifecycle management operations and would not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function.
The independent and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-22 are rejected for fully incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection(s), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The present invention relates to APPARATUS, SYSTEMS, ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE, AND METHODS FOR DATA LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT IN AN EDGE ENVIRONMENT. The closest prior art Bhosale et al (IDS cited) is directed to Predictive Object Tiering Based on Object Metadata. Smith et al also is directed to EDGE COMPUTING SERVICE GLOBAL VALIDATION. Vezyrtzis (US 2018/0367128), relates to increasing significance of clock distribution on synchronous performance, using edge-triggered registers. Finally, the control of any differences and uncertainty in the arrival times of the clock signals could severely limit the maximum performance of the entire system However, Bhosale, Smith, and Vezyrtzis either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the recited features: performing a first lifecycle management operation on the data object at a first point in time, the first lifecycle management operation including archiving the data object, the first point in time determined based on the first time value; and perform a second lifecycle management operation on the data object at a second point in time, the second point in time different from the first point in time, the second lifecycle management operation including discarding the data object from memory, the second point in time based on the second time value.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Tsang; Jim Wei Chien (US-8533767-B1) relates to content identifier for the content to a prioritizer, associating a lifecycle having a plurality of lifecycle states with the category, assigning a first priority to the content in response to a first lifecycle state of the plurality of lifecycle states, changing the first lifecycle state to a second lifecycle state and changing the first priority to a second priority in response to changing the first lifecycle state to a second lifecycle state.
COMETTI; Aldo Giovanni (US-20190215016-A1), relates to preconfigured with a P/E cycle threshold for an optimal switch point for a situation where the data storage system 100 goes offline for a predefined offline duration (e.g., 3 months). However, if the data storage system 100 is not expected to go offline, the optimal switch point may later in the life cycle than the preconfigured switch point and thus may correspond to a number of P/E cycles greater than the preconfigured P/E cycle threshold.
Karinta; Vineeth (US-10496488-B2), relates to clone life cycle management means generating a clone, refreshing a clone and deleting a clone based on user defined policies and requirements. Refreshing a clone means deleting an existing clone, generating a new snapshot and then creating the clone again.
Zimmermann; Gil (US-20180027006-A1), relates to the cache buffer may be always available and have lifecycle management features. The cache buffer may also store blooms, lists and customer-specific configurations. An alternative cache buffer may use DynamoDB™.
Driesen; Volker (US-20140019429-A1), relates to discrete parts of a database system to a "read-only" state while other parts of the application or other parts of the database system continue to operate normally at least for some period of time during a lifecycle management event.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights